Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/CTU

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

CTU

A while back I gave this article a rewrite, but I left it pretty short because I ran low on ideas. No one has really done any meaningful content edits on it since I rewrote it. Does anyone have any thoughts on the current article or where I could take it? --Roastpork 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't give a full review I'll give some ideas. First off you need and Introduction. I being only 14 and British have not a huge understanding of what CTU was until I looked at the picture half way down, this affected on the humour. Maybe Rather than satire the unit from the 24 TV SERIS not to well know here in England, but satirizing republican anti-terror propaganda units as it seems like a better concept. Maybe Instead of fighting the 'Bad Guys' CTU tries to find links between video piracy and terrorism. The CTU could be a bunch of rednecks that go and shoot those 'Godless Radical liberal hippies' and burn down innocent Muslim mosques. The best way to satire is to become that object, speak in first person, and maybe you could speak as if you are the leader of CTU. Uncyclopedia is not just about writing, it’s also about drama. This article has a lot of potential as political satire, but I think satirizing the 24 TV SERIS is a limited concept. Forever yours--SIR T H A T G U Y H U F F E D M E  throw a snowball  11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're totally right. Sometimes I forget that some of the world doesn't have our crappy TV shows : ). Expanding it from CTU-only content is an excellent idea, thanks! Roastpork 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	2	I really don't get the jokes (if there are any). I have never watched an episode of 24; this may shed light on this puzzling mystery.
Concept:	1	Well, to put it bluntly, what is the concept?
Prose and formatting:	2	It doesn't have a coherent structure, and because of this, is little more than a stub. The text that is there seems not to flow at all, and seems to consist of a few, vaguely relevant sentences.
Images:	6	One good thing on the page, admittedly.
Miscellaneous:	5	Whilst SPG is good, I don't like red links!
Final Score:	16	You, as the author, may or may not have given up on this article. Regardless, I am driven to write this critique, mainly because I feel it a civil necessity. The article barely qualifies for that name, as it is more a footnote in a larger volume, than anything else. As the author, you need to address some critical issues: Firstly, it needs some coherency. Think about what you intend to do in the series of gags, why it's going to be funny to somebody you've never met before etc. Secondly, it needs a little love, you can't just leave it there to die: keep working on the job, improving and expanding your work. Either that or refer it to VFD. Finally, you may want to get some help writing it. I would recommend the uncyclopedia beginner's guide, and How to be funny and not just stupid.
Reviewer:	--The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)